Page No. 1 of 34
APSR050000342023
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, SOMPETA
PRESENT: Sri J. Srinivasarao,
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sompeta.
Friday, the Twenty Seventh day of February, Two thousand Twenty Six (27.02.2026)
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 04 of 2023
BETWEEN:
Yadam Puspa @ Telli Puspa. W/o late Laxmana Rao, aged 34 years, Hindu, housewife, House No.19-214. Medara Street (Near Someawara Temple) Sompeta, Sompeta Mandalam, Srikakulam District, 532 284.
… Plaintiffs.
AND:
1. Yadam Mohan Srinivas, s/o late Dhilli Rao. aged 41 years, Hindu, Private Employee at Sridhar Hospital, R.T.C. Complex Area, Arts College Road, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District, Pin 532 001.
2. Telli Radhika, W/o Baburao, aged 45 years, Hindu, house-wife, Medari Street, Ichapuram, Ichapuram Mandalam, Srikakulam District, PIN: 532312.
3. Telli Sakuntala, W/o Bhaskara Rao, aged 35 years, Hindu, House-wife, H.No.6-158, Jalantra Harijana Street, Sompeta, Sompeta Mandalam, Srikakulam, District, Pin 532 284.
4. Telli Balaram. S/o Bairagi, aged 67 years, Hindu, Private Employee, Utkal Ashram Road, Berhampur Ganjam District, Odisha.
Page No. 2 of 34
5. Telli JagYadamba W/o Balaram, aged 57 years, Hindi, House-wife, Utkal Asjram Road, Berhampur. Ganjam District, odisha.
6. YYadam Nagaveni, W/o Ananda Rao, aged 41 years, Hindu, House- wife, H.No.11-173, Golla Street, sompeta, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam Dist ., 532 284.
7. YYadam Paparao, s/o late Venkata Swamy, aged 62 years, Hindu, Private Employee, H.No.9-202, Kedari Street, Sompeta, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District, Pin. 532284.
8. Telli Venkata Rao, S/o late Parasayya, aged 55 years, Hindu, Business, H.No.8-93, Bazar Street, Sompeta, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District, Pin: 532284. … Defendants.
This Suit coming on 11.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Goda S. Sailendra, Advocate for Plaintiff; and of Sri K. Rajeswara Rao, Advocate for Defendants No.1 and 2; and of Sri V. Balakrishna, Advocate for Defendants No.3 to 8; and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the Defendants seeking to:-
(a) Partition of the items 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties into 3 (three) equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and put her in separate possession of one such share after converting the joint possession into separate possession;
b) Subsequent mesne profits:
c) Cost's of the suit; and
d) to grant such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature and circumstances of the case.
Page No. 3 of 34
2. The brief averments of the plaint are:-
(i)One Yadam Dhilli Rao had two sons viz., Laxmana
Rao and Mohan Srinivas (D.1) and a daughter by name Radhika (D.2).
They constitute as Hindu Joint family and coparceners of the joint family properties. The said Dhilli Rao died intestate on 05-03-2020 (Death
Certificate is filed), leaving behind him Laxmana Rao, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 as his legal heirs. Thus, all the joint family properties more-fully described in the schedule annexed herewith, which may please be read as part of this plaint, devolved upon the above named sons and daughter being Class-I legal heirs under the provisions of Hindu
Succession Act as the wife of Dhilli Rao predeceased him ie., on 25-06- 2017.
(ii) And that the said Yadam Dhilli Rao have succeeded the items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties from his father and they are his ancestral properties. Dhilli Rao purchased the items 3 and 4 of the plaint schedule properties. Item No.3 was purchased on 29-06-1989 from one Pilli Neelakantam for valid consideration of Rs.1.400/- and took possession of the same. Item No.4 was purchased by Dhilli Rao on 22- 06-1989 from Ardhi Hanumanta Rao and others for valid consideration of
Rs.1,700/- and took possession of the same. The certified copies of the said sale deeds are filed herewith.
(iii) The plaintiff is the wife of Laxmana Rao. They were blessed with a daughter Moksha on 18-09-2017. Laxmana Rao died on 19-10- 2021 (Death Certificate is filed) intestate, leaving behind him, his wife.
YYadam Puspa (plaintiff) and his daughter Moksha as his only legal heirs.
They succeeded the share/estate of late Laxmana Rao. Thus, upon the death of Laxmana Rao, his share in all the suit schedule properties have been devolved upon the plaintiff being wife of Laxmana Rao and daughter
Page No. 4 of 34
Moksha. However, Moksha died on 08-05-2022. Thus, the plaintiff and defendant's 1 and 2 are entitled 1/3rd share each. They are in constructive joint possession and enjoyment of all the joint family properties. Thus, the plaintiff is also a coparcener of the joint family properties.
(iv) Thus, all the plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and are in constructive joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequent to the death of
Laxmana Rao, the plaintiff requesting the defendants 1 and 2 for partition of the suit schedule properties into 3 equal shares and allot one such share, since the defendant No.1, who lives in Srikakulam trying to dispose the joint family properties.
(v) The defendant No.1 in order to defraud the legitimate share of the plaintiff, made / executed sham and nominal sale deeds disposing the land in item No.4 by dividing it into plots/bits, in favour of the defendants No.3 to 8 on 24-08-2022. Hence, they are added as parties in the suit. The said sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the defendants 3 to 8 are not binding on the plaintiff and are void documents.
(vi) In view of such illegal execution of sale deeds, the plaintiff is not inclined to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and filed this suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 3 (three) equal shares by metes and bounds and allot one such share to the plaintiff by converting the joint possession into separate possession.
3. 2 nd defendant filed the written statement and the same was adopted by the defendant No.1 by filing memo.
Page No. 5 of 34
Brief contents of the WRITTEN STATEMENT filed by the 2 nd
Defendant are:-
(i)That the 2nd defendant denied the averments of the plaint and contended that Lakshmana Rao did not have any relationship with the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not the wife of Lakshmana Rao. Lakshmana
Rao used to live alone with the 1st defendant herein. In an oral family arrangement that was brought about between LakshmanaRao, Mohana
Srinivas (1st defendant) and Radhika/2nd defendant, the plaint schedule properties i.e. Item No 1 & 4 were allotted to defendant No.1; whereas
Item No. 2 was allotted to Lakshmana Rao and Item No. 3 was allotted to
Radhika / this defendant.
(ii)Thereafter, Lakshmana Rao died and his share i.e., Item
No.2 devolved upon his brother / defendant No.1 and sister as they are the heirs of Lakshmana Rao who died unmarried. Item No. 2 which was originally allotted to Lakshmana Rao was given to defendant No.1 in another family arrangement after the death of Lakshmana Rao, brought about between 2nd defendant and defendant No.1.
(iii) Thus, the properties were divided long back long prior to filing of the suit; and Defendant No.1 being the absolute owner of the Item
No.4 executed Registered sale deeds in favour of defendants No.3 to 8 and delivered title and possession in favour of defendants No.3 to 8 separately. Defendant No.1 as absolute owner, executed sale deeds
dated 24-08-2022 for valuable consideration lawfully. The right of
Defendant No.1 can not be questioned by the plaintiff who has no relationship either with Lakshmana Rao or with the family in any manner.
(iv)The plaintiff filed the suit knowingfully well that the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants 3 to 8 by Defendant No.1 / the absolute owner of the properties for legal necessity as he had incidental
Page No. 6 of 34 debts incurred to meet the medical expenses of his brother and family needs. Plaintiff had no marital relationship with Lakshmana Rao.
Therefore, she has no right what-so-ever with Lakshmana Rao, consequently she has no right what-so-ever to claim partition.
(v)The child Moksha was not born to the plaintiff through
Lakshmana Rao and this defendant does not know the child if any died on the alleged date. Plaintiff can not have any claim in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Plaintiff has no possession much less joint possession with 2nd defendant, Defendant No.1 or Defendants No.3 to 8.
The valuation of the suit under section 34(1) of the A.P.C.F Act is not correct and the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee.
(vi)The Defendants 3 to 8 having purchased the properties for valuable consideration as narrated supra are entitled to be in possession of the property with valid and absolute rights and plaintiff cannot have any claim in respect of the properties covered by the aforesaid sale deeds. As the plaintiff has no possession much less joint possession with defendants, cannot claim joint possession and the valuation of the suit under 34(1) is not correct and she is required to pay ad valorem court fees.
(vii)In the light of the facts, as the plaintiff paid insufficient court fee, the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule-11.C.P.C.; and that the Plaint is improperly stamped; and that suit is not in time. The plaintiff has no relationship with the defendant 1 & 2. Therefore, she could not furnish the material particulars such as the date, place, and other material particulars of the marriage and the birth of said child
Moksha; and the suit is not maintainable under law. The suit as framed is not in accordance with law. The suit is not in time. The 2nd defendant therefore prays the Hon'ble Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary
Page No. 7 of 34 costs.
4. 3 rd defendant filed the written statement and the same was adopted by the defendant No.4 to 8 by filing memo.
The brief Contents of the WRITTEN STATEMENT filed by the 3 rd
Defendant are:-
(i) That the 3 rd defendant denied the averments of the plaint and contended that these defendants are not aware of the alleged relationship of the plaintiff with Lakshma Rao. Therefore, the plaintiff is put to strict proof of her relationship with Lakshmana Ro. Lakshmana Rao used to live alone with the 1st defendant herein. In an oral family arrangement that was brought about between Lakshmana Rao, Srinivasa
Rao (1st defendant) and Radhika. The plaint schedule properties i.e. Item
No 1 & 4 were allotted to Srinivasa Rao; whereas Item No.2 was allotted to Lakshmana Rao and Item No. 3 was allotted to Radhika.
(ii)Thereafter, Lakshmana Rao died and his share i.e., Item No.
2 devolved upon his brother and sister. That Item No.2 was given to
Defendant No.1 in between another family arrangement made between
Radhika and Defendant No.1.
(iii)Thus, the properties were divided long back long prior to filing of the suit and Defendant No.1 being the absolute owner of the Item No. 4 executed Registered sale deeds in favour of Defendant No.3 to 8 and delivered title and possession in favour of Defendant No.3 to 8 separately.
Defendant No. 3 to 8 are in possession of the properties covered by the
Registered sale deeds. Defendant No.3 is in possession of the properties which she has purchased from Defendant No.1 under Registered sale deed dated 24-08-2022, document No. 2446/2022, East to West: 8.5 feet,
Page No. 8 of 34
North to South 60 feet, situated in Survey No. 211/3, total extent of 56 Sq.
Yards (17.08 mts) and another bit under by Registered sale deed dated 24-08-2022 Document No. 2443/2022 in respect of site situated in
Birusuvada, Survey No. 211/3 East to West 30 feet, North to South - 12 feet, in an extent of 40 sq. yards and she having obtained possession and title continued to be in possession of the same in her own right. Similarly,
Defendant No.4 to 6 purchased the property covered under Registered sale deed dated 24-08-2022 for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,12,000/- covered by document No. 2448/2022 in respect of property in an extent of 107 sq. Yards in survey No. 211/3 and obtained possession and title there under and continued to be in possession of the same in their own right.
(iv)Similarly, Defendant No.6 Yadam Nagaveni purchased in an extent of 90 sq. Yards covered by survey No. 211/3 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 3,47,000/-and obtained possession and title there under and she continued to be in possession of the same in her own right.
(v)Defendant No.7 purchased 2 bits vide sale deed dated 24.08.2022, document No. 2447/2022 in an extent of 107 sq. Yards covered by survey No. 211/3 East to West 16.10 feet, North to south 60 feet from Yadam Srinivasa Rao and obtained title and possession there under and Defendant No.7 also purchased site in an extent of 80 Sq.
Yards: East to West-66 feet, North to South 11 feet, covered by survey
No. 211/3: Document No. 2442/2022 from Defendant No.1 for valuable consideration of Rs.3,08,000/- and obtained possession and title there under.
(vi)Defendant No.8 purchased 2 items, one bit under registered sale deed dated 24/08/2022 for valuable consideration of Rs.1,54,000/-
Page No. 9 of 34 vide Document No. 2445/2022 in an extent of 40. Sq. yards covered by
Survey No. 211/3 from D1 and another bit in an extent of 56. Sq. yards under registered sale deed dated 24/08/2022, Document No. 2444/2022 for valuable consideration of Rs. 2,16,000/- and Defendant No.8 obtained possession and title of the afore said two items and continued to be in possession of the same as absolute owner. Therefore, the said registered sale deeds executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.3 to 8 are valid, supported by valuable consideration in accordance with law.
Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can’t be said that they are nominal.
(vii)The plaintiff filed the suit knowing-fully well that the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants by the absolute owner of the properties for legal necessities as he had incidental debts incurred to meet the medical expenses of his brother and family needs. On verification it came to light that plaintiff had no marital relationship with
Lakshmana Rao, and therefore, she has no right what-so-ever with
Lakshmana Rao,, consequently she cannot acquire any right to claim partition. These defendants 3 to 8 have no knowledge about the birth and death of the child Moksha and her parentage. So, the plaintiff's claim is illegal, unsubstantiated and not based on any evidence either under
Succession Act as claimed by her.
(viii)The defendants having purchased the properties for valuable consideration as narrated supra are entitled to be in possession of the property with valid and absolute rights and plaintiff cannot have any claim in respect of the properties covered by the afore said sale deeds.
(ix)It is submitted that as the plaintiff has no possession much less joint possession with Defendant No.3 to 8 cannot claim joint
Page No. 10 of 34 possession and the valuation of the suit under 34(2) is not correct and she is required to pay ad valorem court fees.
(x) In the light of the facts the plaintiff paid insufficient court fee., the suit is liable to reject under Order 7, Rule – 11 C.P.C. Plaint is improperly stamped. Suit is not in time. The plaintiff has no relationship much less as wife of Lakshmana Rao, therefore she could not furnish the material particulars such as the dte, place, and other material particulars of the marriage and the birth of said child Moksha. The suit is not maintainable under law. The suit as framed is not an accordance with law.
The suit is not in time. The 3rd defendant, therefore, prays that the Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4.Basing on the pleadings of the above averment of plaint and written statement, this court framed the following ISSUES:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of the deceased / Yadam Laxmana Rao?
2. If so, whether the plaintiff gave birth to one female child by name Moksha through the deceased / Yadam Laxmana Rao, if
so, whether the said female child died on 08.05.2022?
3. If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim share of the deceased / Yadam Laxmana Rao in the plaint schedule properties by seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties against the defendants 1 and 2?
4. If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties?
5. Whether, the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court-fee u/sec.34(1) of AP Court-fee and Suits Valuation Act, as contended by the defendants?
Page No. 11 of 34
6. To what relief?
5.During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got marked
Ex.A1 to A13. Further, the father of plaintiff has been examined as PW.2; and another independent witness has been examined as PW.3 on behalf of the plaintiff.
On the other hand, the 1st and 2nd defendants examined themselves as DW.1 and D.W.2. Further, Defendants 1 and 2 examined D.W.3. The 8th defendant on behalf of defendants 3 to 8 examined himself as D.W.4 and got marked exhibits Ex.B1 to B4.
6.Heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for plaintiff and defendants.
7.Since issues no.1 and 2 are interconnected, they are discussed under one head.
Issue no.1: “Whether the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of the deceased / Yadam Laxmana Rao?”
Issue no.2: “If so, whether the plaintiff gave birth to one female child by name Moksha through the deceased / Yadam Laxmana Rao, if so, whether the said female child died on 08.05.2022?”
(i)It is the case of the plaintiff as per plaint averments that she is the wife of Yadam Lakshmanrao; and that they were blessed with a daughter Moksha on 18.09.2017; and that Yadam Lakshmanrao died on 19.10.2021 intestate leaving behind him his wife i.e. plaintiff and his daughter Moksha as his legal heirs; and that Moksha died on 08.05.2022. The claim of the defendants 1 and 2 through their written statement is that the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of Yadam Lakshman Rao; and that the child Moksha was not born to the plaintiff through Lakshmanrao. The remaining defendants no. 3 to 8 also
Page No. 12 of 34 through their written statement categorically denied the relationship of plaintiff with Yadam Lakshmana Rao, and they stated that they do not know whether the Yadam Lakshmana Rao married the plaintiff or not, but their inquiries revealed that she is not the legally wedded wife of the Yadam Lakshman Rao.
(ii)In order to substantiate her claim that she is the legally wedded wife of
Yadam Lakshmana Rao and she gave birth to her daughter Moksha, the plaintiff being PW1 reiterated the same in her chief examination affidavit. The defendants subjected PW1 to cross examination and made suggestions by way of denial of her claim of relationship with Yadam Lakshmanrao as his wife and also giving birth to the Moksha through Yadam Lakshman Rao. However,
PW1 denied the same and stood with the test of the cross-examination.
Further, the plaintiff being PW1 relied on Exhibit A.12 original family member certificate dated 18.11.2021 issued by Tahsildar, Sompetta and also Exhibit
A13 original Aadhar card of her. The perusal of Exhibit A.12 and Exhibit A.13 would show that she is the legally wedded wife of Yadam Lakshmana Rao and her name in Exhibit A.12 original family member certificate and Exhibit
A13 original Aadhar card got recorded as the wife of Yadam Lakshmana Rao.
The PW1 denied the suggestion given by the counsel for defendants during cross examination that Exhibit A.12 and Exhibit A.13 were created for the purpose of this suit. Further, the plaintiff examined her father as PW2, who also corroborated the evidence of PW1 in his chief examination affidavit by deposing that he performed the marriage of plaintiff with Yadam Lakshmana
Rao on 21.08.2013; and that they were blessed with one daughter by name
Moksha; and that the said Moksha died on 08.05.2022. During cross examination, the Counsel for defendants subjected PW2 to cross-examination and suggested that Plaintiff is not the wife of Yadam Lakshmana Rao and she did not give birth to Moksha through Yadam Lakshmana Rao. The PW2
Page No. 13 of 34 denied those suggestions and stood with the test of the cross examination.
Further, the plaintiff examined one Yadam Soumeswara Rao as PW3., who also corroborated the evidence of PW1 in his chief examination that he knows the plaintiff and defendants and that his house is near to the house of Yadam
Dhilli Rao; and that the son of Yadam Dhilli Rao by name Yadam Lakshmana
Rao married the plaintiff Pushpa on 21.08.2013 at Sompeta and they were blessed with one daughter by name Moksha in the year 2017; and that
Lakshman Rao died in the year 2021; and that Moksha also died in the year 2022; and that he is the distant relative of Yadam Dhilli Rao and his wife is sister of plaintiff Pushpa, and as such, he knows the family of Yadam Dhilli
Rao. In this regard, it is observed from the cross examination of PW3 that the counsel for the defendants subjected PW3 to cross-examination and made suggestions by denying the relationship of plaintiff being plaintiff as the wife of
Yadam Lakshmana Rao and also denying the marriage of PW1 with Yadam
Lakshmana Rao. But, PW3 denied those suggestions and stood with the test of the cross-examination.
(iii)Coming to the evidence of defendants, the first defendant examined himself as DW1 and in his chief examination affidavit, he categorically admitted the fact that his brother Lakshman Rao died leaving behind him his wife Yadam Pushpa and one daughter Moksha and the said Moksha also died. During cross-examination also D.W.1 categorically admitted that the plaintiff by name Pushpa is the legally wedded wife of deceased Yadam
Lakshmana Rao; and that they were blessed with one female child by name
Moksha; and that the said female child died on 08.05.2022 and by then the age of said Moksha was 4 years and 8 months. Further, the second defendant being D.W.2, who is the sister of deceased Yadam Lakshmana Rao and first defendant, in her chief examination affidavit, categorically stated that
Page No. 14 of 34
Lakshmana Rao also died leaving behind him his wife Yadam Pushpa and one daughter Moksha and the said daughter Moksha also died. The defendants no. 1 and defendant no. 2 also examined their relative by name
Yadam Naresh kumar as DW3, who also stated in his chief examination that plaintiff is the wife of Bujji, who is younger brother of D1; and that he does not know the actual name of the younger brother of D1, but they used to call the younger brother of D1 as Bujji, and he stated further that after three months of the death of Bujji, his daughter by name Moksha died. In this regard, the 8th defendant, who is examined as DW4, stated in his chief examination affidavit that he does not know the relationship between the plaintiff and Lakshmana
Rao, and asserted that Lakshmana Rao used to live with defendant no. 1.
During cross-examination also, he stated that whether the deceased
Lakshmana Rao is married person or not; and that whether deceased
Lakshmana Rao got one daughter by name Moksha through plaintiff or not; and that whether deceased Lakshmana Rao and plaintiff are wife and husband or not. So, with the admissions of defendants no. 1 and 2 (brother and sister respectively of deceased Lakshmana Rao) that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of their brother Yadam Lakshmana Rao and that they were blessed with one daughter Pushpa, it can be safely held that the status of plaintiff being wife of deceased Yadam Lakshmana Rao has been proved even with the admission of defendants 1 and 2 and further it is corroborated with the evidence of DW3, who is also relative of defendants no. 1 and defendant no.2 and Yadam Lakshmana Rao. It can, therefore, be said that there is no dispute with regard to relationship of plaintiff being wife of deceased Yadam Lakshmana Rao, and also with regard to the fact that they were blessed with one female child by name Moksha, who died on 08.05.2022. Therefore, it can be safely held that plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of deceased Lakshmana Rao and that they were blessed with one female
Page No. 15 of 34 child by name Moksha, who died on 08.05.2022. Accordingly Issue No. 1 and
Issue No. 2 are answered in favour of Plaintiff.
8. Issue Nos.3 and 4: Both issues are inter-related, and as such, they are discussed under one head.
Issue No.3: If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim share of the
deceased / Yadam Laxmana Rao in the plaint schedule properties by
seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties against the
defendants 1 and 2?
Issue No.4: If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the
plaint schedule properties?
(i)In the light of the findings given while discussing issue Nos.1 and 2, it can be said that absolutely there is no doubt at all with regard to the fact that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of deceased Y. Lakshmanarao; and that she and her husband / Y. Lakshmanarao were blessed with one female child by name Moksha, who died on 08.05.2022. It is also an undisputed fact that Y. Lakshmanarao died on 05.03.2020 leaving behind him his wife / Y. Pushpa who is the plaintiff herein and his daughter
Moksha, who died on 08.05.2022. It is thus, the plaintiff is the only legal heir of deceased / Y. Lakshmanarao. It is also an undisputed fact that the deceased / Y. Lakshmanarao is the younger brother of 1st defendant and 2nd defendant; and their father is Y. Dhilli Rao, who already died prior to the death of Y. Lakshmana Rao. It is also an undisputed fact even as per the written statement filed by defendant No.2 and 3; and also as per the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 that Y. Dhilli Rao inherited the item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties from his father while he purchased item No.3 of plaint schedule property and item No.4 of plaint schedule properties from his vendors / P. Neelakantam insofar as item No.3 is
Page No. 16 of 34 concerned), and Ardhi Hanumantha Rao and others (in so far as item
No.4 is concerned), and therefore, item No.1 and 2 are joint family properties inherited by defendant No.1 and 2 and deceased / Y.
Lakshmana Rao while item No.3 and 4 are the joint family properties succeeded by defendant No.1 and 2 and deceased / Y. Lakshmanarao from their father / Y. Dhilli Rao as his class-I legal heirs.
(ii)It is the specific case of the plaintiff that after the death of her husband / Y. Lakshmana Rao and her daughter / Y. Moksha, the plaintiff is the only person remains as sole class-I legal heir to the undivided share of her deceased husband in the item No.1 to 4 of plaint schedule properties and therefore, she came into shoes of her husband as one of the co-parceners along with other coparceners of her husband, who are defendant No.1 and 2 since the plaint schedule properties are still continuing as joint family properties, and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2, and as such, she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of her husband, she requested the defendants No.1 and 2 for partition of the plaint schedule properties into three equal shares, and allot one such share, since the 1st defendant is residing at Srikakulam and trying to trespass for the joint family properties; and that the 1st defendant in order to defraud the legitimate share of the plaintiff, executed sham and nominal sale deeds disposing the land in item No.4 by dividing into the plots in favour of defendants 3 to 8, and therefore, she filed this suit seeking for partition of plaint schedule properties and allot 1/3rd share therein to her by showing defendant No.3 to 8 also as parties in the suit since the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in their favour are not binding on her.
(iii)On the other hand, the contention of the defendants No.1 and 2 as
Page No. 17 of 34 per their written statement is that Y. Lakshmanarao used to live along with the 1st defendant herein, and in oral family arrangement that was brought among Lakshmanarao, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant, item No.1 and 4 of plaint schedule properties were allotted to 1st defendant; whereas item
No.2 of plaint schedule property was allotted to deceased / Y.
Lakshmanarao; and item No.3 of plaint schedule property was allotted to 2nd defendant; and that after the death of Y. Lakshamanarao, his share i.e.
item No.2 of plaint schedule property devolved upon defendant No.1 and 2; and that the said item no.2 of plaint schedule property was given to defendant No.1 in another family arrangement made in between the defendant No.1 and 2, and therefore, long prior to filing of this suit, defendant No.1 being absolute owner of the item No.4 of plaint schedule property executed sale deeds in favour of defendant No.3 to 8 and delivered title and possession in favour of defendant No.3 to 8.
(iv)As per the defence of defendant No.1 to 8 as set out in their separate written statement, in concise, is that item no.1 to 4 of plaint schedule properties were already partitioned among the deceased
Y.Lakshmanarao, defendant No.1 and 2 after the death of their father; and in such oral family arrangement, the Y.Lakshmanarao was allotted item No.2 of plaint schedule properties; Defendant No.1 was allotted Item
No.1 and 4 of plaint schedule properties; and defendant No.2 was allotted to item No.3 of plaint schedule property; and further after the death of Y.
Lakshmanarao, the share of him i.e. item No.2 of plaint schedule properly was allotted to 1st defendant in another oral family arrangement between the defendant No.1 and 2. Particularly, this defence appears to be in consonance with the claim of defendants 1 and 2 in addition to the contention to the effect that the plaintiff is not the wife of Y.
Lakshmanarao; and Yadam Moksha was not born to plaintiff and Y.
Page No. 18 of 34
Lakshmanarao. However, in view of the findings given while discussing issue No.1 and 2, it is clearly proved and established even as per the admissions made by defendant No.1 and 2 during their evidence that plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of deceased / Y. Lakshmanarao and they gave birth to one female child by name Y. Moksha who died later, and therefore, the said contentions of defendants No.1 and 2 as well as defendants 3 to 8 were turned out to be falsehood.
(v)Plaintiff in order to substantiate her above claim, in respect of plaint schedule properties, examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the plaint contents in her chief examination affidavit and also examined PW.2 and
PW.3 who also supported the contention of the plaintiff. During the cross examination, the counsel for the defendants failed to elicit any useful material to discredit the evidence of PW.1 to 3 with regard to claim of plaintiff that she got share in the plaint schedule properties. Further, on perusal of the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2, it is quite surprised to note that both 1st defendant being DW.1 and 2nd defendant being DW.2, in their respective chief examination affidavits, totally changed their version from that of their written statement contentions, and raised new contentions as follows:-
(vi)That after the death of Y. Lakshmanarao and his daughter /
Moksha, the plaintiff left the company of matrimonial home and she demanded her share, for which, defendant No.1 and 2 had given the plaintiff the following items towards her share:-
1. SBI Life Insurance Rs. 660,000/-
2. Little children plan amountRs. 2,86,320/-
3. Dowry amount Rs.50,000/- deposited in bank and matured amount.
Rs.94,000/-
4. Sale of goods in shop which was run by deceased Lakshmana Rao.
Page No. 19 of 34
Rs.33,607/-
5. Bike, (sold) belonged to deceased Lakshmana Rao Rs.28,000/-
6. Sukanya Samrudhi maturity amount Ro.5,72,840/- i.e. total amount
Rs.15,80,567/-
And also the following gold given to the plaintiff.
1. Gold pustule tadu 1 and ½ tula
2. Gold pustule kappulu 1/2 tula
3. Nucklace 2 tulas
4. Gold Haram 2 and 1½ tulas
5. Ear rings 1/2 tula
6. Rings 1/4 tula
7. Gold chain 1 tula
8. Deceased Lakshmana rao 's ring 1/2 tula
9. Gold Bangles 1/2 tula
10. Bracelet 1 tula
11. Deceased Lakshmana Rao's mother's gold chain 1 tula
12. Gold locket 1/4 tula
13. Gold nallapusala haram 3 and 1/2 tulas
14. Navaratnalu 1 tula i.e. Total gold ornaments given to plaintiff 16 Tulas.
(vii)Further, DW.1 and D.W.2 in their respective chief examination affidavits brought a new case that after receiving the above mentioned gold and cash, the plaintiff left from matrimonial house and her whereabouts were not known to the family members of the deceased
Lakshmanarao; and that in oral family arrangement, the plaintiff took above gold and cash towards her share and she relinquished her right regarding her alleged share in the plaint schedule property; and now she
Page No. 20 of 34 filed the suit with a malafide intention to grab the plaint schedule properties which fell into the share of defendant No.1 and 2, and therefore, the plaintiff can’t seek any share as she had already taken her share by way of cash and gold; and that an amount of Rs.9,46,320/- cash was deposited in Union Bank, Sompeta i.e. in her account. During the cross examination, DW.1 and DW.2 categorically admitted that the SBI life insurance for Rs.6,60,000/- shown in their chief examination affidavit is the life insurance of the deceased brother Lakshmanarao and nominee of such insurance is plaintiff who is his wife; and that Rs.2,86,320/- is the
Little children plan insurance subscribed by Y. Lakshmanarao in the name of his daughter Moksha; and that the dowry amount Rs.50,000/- given by parents of plaintiff was kept in fixed deposit by plaintiff and her husband /
Y. Lakshmanarao and matured amount is of Rs.94,000/-; and that
Sukanya Samrudhi maturity amount Rs.5,72,840/- has not been paid to plaintiff so far; and that item No.1 to 7 of gold ornaments are the gold ornaments given by the parents of plaintiff to the plaintiff; and that item no.8 of gold ornament is the gold ornament gifted by the parents of plaintiff to the deceased / Y. Lakshmanarao at the time of his marriage; and that item No.9 of gold ornament was presented by DW.2 to the daughter of Y. Lakshmanarao at the time of her birth; and that DW.1 and
DW.2 presented item No.10 of gold ornament to deceased Y.
Lakshmanarao at the time of his marriage; and that item No.11 of gold ornament was made out of the melted gold of their deceased mother and given to the deceased Lakshmanarao; and that item No.12 of gold ornament was purchased by Y. Lakshmanarao for his wearing; and that item No.3 and 4 of gold ornaments were purchased by deceased
Lakshmanarao and gifted to his wife i.e. plaintiff; and that item No.1 to 14 of gold ornaments are the properties of deceased younger brother and his
Page No. 21 of 34 wife / plaintiff; and that the deposit amount of Rs.9,46,320/- is the total amount of SBI Life Insurance, little children plan amount and dowry amount. Further, DW.1 and DW.2 categorically stated during their cross examination that they have not obtained any registered relinquishment deed in relation to the plant schedule properties from the plaintiff.
Further, DW.1 stated during cross examination that the goods in the shop of Y. Lakshmanarao were sold after the death of Y. Lakshmanarao and given sale proceeds of Rs.33,607 to the plaintiff, but he has not filed any documentary proof to show that he sold such goods in the shop of his brother Lakshmanarao. Further, DW.1 stated during cross examination that the Bike of Lakshmanarao was sold previously by brother-in-law of plaintiff for Rs.28,000/-, but he has no documentary proof to show that sale. Further, DW.2 additionally claimed in her chief examination affidavit that Lakshmanarao borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the caste association and died without repayment of the said amount and when the caste people approached them and demanded for repayment of that amount, 1st defendant and herself paid the debt amount to the caste association. In this regard, DW.2, during cross examination, stated that she could not state as to when the deceased Lakshmanarao borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the caste association; and that she has no custody of any document showing that they paid amount to caste association.
(viii)From the above evidence of DW.1 and DW.2, it is made clear that in order to avoid the legitimate share of plaintiff being the sole class-1 legal heirs of deceased / Y. Lakshmanarao, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant changed the entire defence taken in their written statement and came with the above extracted new version as if the plaintiff were given the above mentioned cash and gold ornaments in liue of her share in the
Page No. 22 of 34 joint family properties, by leaving the earlier theory of oral family settlement among them and deceased Yadam Lakshmanara. But, as noted above, during cross examination DW.1 and DW.2 came out with true facts that the above mentioned cash and gold ornaments are the estate of deceased Y.Lakshmanarao and they are the properties owned by the family of deceased Yadam Lakshmanarao and his wife/plaintiff, even though the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant failed to file any documentary proof to show and establish that they have settled the above amounts and gold items to plaintiff in liue of her share in plaint schedule properties. Further, they failed to file any registered relinquishment deed to prove and establish that plaintiff relinquished her share in plaint schedule properties in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 by taking the above mentioned cash and gold ornaments.
(ix)Further, in order to prove their new version as introduced in their evidence, D.1 and D.2 examined DW.3 who is said to be the relative of 1st defendant. DW.3 in his examination-in-chief deposed before the court that they used to call the younger brother of defendant No.1 as Bujji since he does not know the actual name of the younger brother of defendant
No.1; and that about 3 months after the deaths of Bujji and his daughter by name Moksha, an elders meeting was held with regard to demand made by the plaintiff who is wife of Bujji for partition of the plaint schedule properties of defendant and Bujji, and to give her share; and that he attended the said elders meeting and deliberations were made; and that to his knowledge, the defendants agreed to give gold and cash etc., to the wife of Bujji; and that he knows to that extent only. During cross examination, DW.3 stated that he is not the caste elder; and that he does not know the details of the properties belonging to Bujji; and that he does not know the details of the joint family properties of defendants and
Page No. 23 of 34 plaintiff. The above evidence of DW.3 is not at all helpful even for the purpose of proving the new version raised by the defendant No.1 and 2 in their chief examination that they settled the gold and cash to the plaintiff in lieu of her share in plaint schedule properties, since defendant No.3 categorically stated that the defendants agreed to give gold and cash to the plaintiff, but he has not stated as to whether the plaintiff relinquished her share in the plaint schedule properties before the elders by taking any gold and cash from D.1 and D.2. Even otherwise, the evidence of DW.3 has not corroborated the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 even with regard to the new contention as taken in their chief examination affidavit. So, as per the evidence of defendant No.1 and 2, it is made clear that defendant
No.1 and 2 failed to prove and establish with any believable evidence that during the life time of their brother Y. Lakshmanarao, plaint schedule properties were settled among them; and that after the death of Y.
Lakshmanarao, the alleged share allotted to him i.e. item No.2 of plaint schedule property was again allotted to the 1st defendant in the separate family arrangement between the defendants No.1 and 2. Hence, the plaintiff being the class-I legal heir of Y. Lakshmanarao is entitled to claim the undivided share of her husband in the plaint schedule properties.
Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered in favour of plaintiff.
(x)When coming to the entitlement of share of plaintiff in plaint schedule properties, particularly in item no.4 of plaint schedule property is concerned, it is the contention of defendants No.3 to 8 that they are bonafide purchasers of the properties and they purchased their properties which are part of item No.4 of plaint schedule property from the 1st defendant. And they have taken the defence as taken by defendant No.1 and 2 in their written statement such as that in view of oral settlement among the deceased / Y. Lakshmanarao, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant,
Page No. 24 of 34 item No.1 and 4 were allotted to 1st defendant and thereafter 1st defendant being absolute owner of item No.4 of plaint schedule properties converted the said item No.4 of plaint schedule properties in the plots and sold the said plots to defendant No.3 to 8 under registered sale deeds; and that the plaintiff is not at all the wife of Y. Lakshmanarao and in fact
Lakshmanarao died as unmarried.
(xi)In order to substantiate their defence, defendant no.8 being DW.4 gave evidence before the court and reiterated the written statement contents in his chief examination affidavit apart from making allegations against the defendant No.1 and 2 that defendant No.1 and 2 clearly stated in their written statement that Lakshmanarao was a bachelor; and that Lakshmanarao did not marry plaintiff; and that they clearly denied the parentage of Moksha; and that it appears plaintiff colluded with defendant
No.1 and 2 and played fraud; and now they have an after-thought to cheat Defendant No.3 to 8 and to extract money from defendant No.3 to 8 and only to black mail them, they have now stated in the evidence affidavit that plaintiff is the wife of the said Lakshmanarao, which is false.
(xii)During cross examination, DW.4 denied the suggestions given by the counsel for the plaintiff with regard to plaintiff’s claim that exhibits B1 to B4 sale deeds and other sale deeds executed by 1st defendant in favour of defendant No.3 to 8 are sham and nominal documents; and no payment of consideration made.
(xiii)It is made clear from the perusal of the Ex.B1 to B.4 sale deeds as well as Ex.A3 to A9 sale deeds executed by 1st defendant in favour of defendants 3 to 8 that nowhere in such sale deeds it is so mentioned that the plaintiff got the item No.4 of plaint schedule property in the oral settlement among himself, 2nd defendant and deceased Y.
Page No. 25 of 34
Lakshmanarao, but it is clearly mentioned that on the death of his father, he succeeded the item No.4, and thereby claiming that he is the absolute owner of plots covered under item no.4 of plaint schedule properties, sold the said plots to defendant No.3 to 8 under registered sale deeds. So, the recitals of the said registered sale deeds executed in favour of defendant No.3 to 8 also clearly rendered the above contention of defendants No.3 to 8 as falsehood. If at all defendant No.3 to 8 had made an inquiry about the title of 1st defendant over item No.4 of plaint schedule property, they would have certainly got information that item
No.4 of plaint schedule property is the joint family property of deceased /
Y. Lakshmanarao defendant No.1 and 2, but the above noted recitals of the said registered sale deeds as obtained by them from defendant No.1 clearly draw an inference that they believed the words of 1st defendant and purchased the said plots without making any proper inquiry even though admittedly defendant No.3 to 8 are residents of the same locality of the family of Yadam Dhillirao and they belong to same community. In the above circumstances, it can be safely held that defendant No.3 to 8 purchased the joint family property of deceased Y. Lakshmanarao, defendant No.1 and 2 without any partition among the defendant No.1 and 2 and Y. Lakshmanarao, and therefore, they simply came into the shoes of of their vendor/1st defendant in relation to item No.4 of plaint schedule property i.e.,to the extent of the property in the form of plots purchased from 1st defendant.
(xiv)It is the settled law that any purchaser who purchased the undivided share in the joint family properties from any coparcener, the said purchaser or vendee is entitled to the extent of the share that will be allotted to his vendor in partition and equites in that regard will be determined in final decree proceedings while allotting the share in the joint family properties to his vendor.
Page No. 26 of 34
Here in this case, as defendants 3 to 8 have purchased plots covered under item No.4 of plaint schedule property which is undivided joint family property from 1st defendant, they can’t claim that they divested item No.4 of plaint schedule property from joint family property of deceased Y. Lakshmanarao,
Defendant no.1 and Defendant no. 2. Hence, it shall be presumed that they simply came into the shoes of their vendor i.e. 1st defendant in so far as item
No.4 of plaint schedule property is concerned.
(xv) In view of the above discussion and reasons, it can be safely held that the sale deeds executed by 1st defendant in favour of defendants No.3 to 8 in respect of item No.4 of the plaint schedule property, do not bind the plaintiff being sole class-I legal heir of her husband / Y. Lakshmanarao, who is one of the coparceners or co-sharers of the item No.4 of the plaint schedule properties along with other coparceners or co-sharers, who are defendants
No.1 and 2 herein. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties, accordingly, issue No.4 is answered in favour of plaintiff.
9. Issue No.5:-
Whether, the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court-fee u/sec.34(1) of AP Court-fee and Suits Valuation Act, as contended by the defendants?
(i)It is the contention of both defendants No.1 and 2 on one hand and defendants No.3 to 8 on the other hand as per their respective written statements that plaintiff has no possession much less joint possession with defendant No.1 or defendant No.3 to 8; and that the valuation of the suit u/sec.34(2) of the AP court-fee and Suits Valuation Act is not correct and the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee; and that the defendants No.3 to 8 having purchased the properties for a value consideration, they are entitled to be in possession of the property with all valid and absolute rights;
Page No. 27 of 34 and the plaintiff can’t have any claim in respect of properties covered by their sale deeds; and that plaintiff has no possession much less joint possession with defendants, and therefore, she can’t claim joint possession; and therefore, the valuation of suit u/sec.34(2) of AP court-fee and Suits Valuation
Act is not correct, and she shall be required to pay ad valorem court fee.
(ii)In the background of the above contentions, this issue has been framed by this court. In this regard, the counsel for the plaintiff argued and submitted that the plaintiff in plaint clearly averred that she being coparcener is in joint and constructive possession and enjoyment of all joint family properties; and that she has not made any averment in the plaint that she has been executed from the joint family properties much less from the alleged item No.4 of plaint schedule property, part of which was purchased by the defendants 3 to 8 from 1st defendant in plots by way of fraudulent transactions such as by execution of sham and nominal sale deeds by 1st defendant in favour of defendants No.3 to 8. Further, the the counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it is a settled law that all co-owners or co-sharers got exclusive right and interest in every portion of the undivided property and that nobody can predicate that each one has got right, title and interest in a specific item of the joint property till it is partitioned and separate possession is delivered and under these circumstances, possession of one co-owner is the possession on behalf of all co-owners. Further, he submitted that legal position would be that the possession of one co-sharers would become constructive possession on behalf of the other co-sharer who is not in possession and right of co-sharer would be deemed to be protected by the trustees; and that the co-sharer who is not in possession of property is deemed to be in constructive possession of properties. Therefore, they can’t be in adverse possession against the co- sharer unless, the partition is vacated by the parties. For these submissions,
Page No. 28 of 34 he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yalla
Satyanarayana & others Vs. Yalla Perisetti & another reported in 2006(0)
Supreme (AP) 1036.
(iii)Further, the counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to be in actual possession of the suit schedule properties in order to pay fixed court-fee of Rs.200/- u/sec.34(2) of the Court-fee and Suits
Valuation Act. For these submissions, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble
High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in the case of
Komatireddy Venkata Reddy Vs. Smt. Pakkir Jyothi reported in 2004 (0)
Supreme (Telangana) 204.
(iv)Further the counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in this case, the plaintiff has not averred in her plaint that she was excluded from the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the sham and nominal sale deeds executed by 1st defendant in favour of defendants No.3 to 8, and she categorically averred in the plaint that she is in constructive and joint possession of all plaint schedule properties including item No.4 of plaint schedule property; and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to value the court-fee u/sec.34(2)n of the AP court fee and Suits Valuation Act, and as such, entitled to pay fixed court-fee of Rs.200/-, and therefore, no need to pay ad valorem court fee.
(v)On the other hand, the counsel for the defendants No.3 to 8 vehemently argued and submitted that since the defendants No.3 to 8 came into possession of the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property under registered sale deeds executed by 1st defendant in their favour and possession delivered to them, plaintiff shall be deemed to be excluded from the possession of item
No.4 of plaint schedule property, and therefore, the plaintiff is required to pay
Page No. 29 of 34 ad valorem court fee u/sec.34(1) of AP court-fee and Suits Valuation Act.
(vi)Perused the above case laws relied by the counsel for the plaintiff. It is no doubt true that as per the settled law as referred in the above case laws that a co-sharer who is not in actual physical possession of the joint family properties is deemed to be in constructive possession and enjoyment of the said properties along with the other Co-sharer, who is in actual possession of the said properties, and therefore, there can’t be any adverse possession against co-sharer unless partition is effected between the parties. In this case, as found while discussing in issue no.3 and 4 that the defendants No.1 and 2 failed to prove and establish that any oral partition took place among the deceased / Y. Lakshmanarao, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 in connection with item no.1 to 4 of plaint schedule properties, and also failed to prove and establish that plaintiff relinquished the share which fell to her husband who is Y. Lakshmanarao by executing any registered relinquishment deed in their favour. Therefore, it can be said that plaintiff being the class-1 legal heirs of deceased / Y. Lakshmanarao became co-sharer in respect of item No.1 to 4 of plaint schedule properties. In that view of the matter, the plaint schedule properties which are in possession and enjoyment of defendant No.1 and 2 are deemed to be in constructive and joint possession of plaintiff, consequently sale of some part of undivided item No.4 of plaint schedule property by the 1st defendant in favour of D.3 to D.8 without partition of the said property among his co-sharers, can’t be said to have excluded the joint and constructive possession of plaintiff being co-sharer of the plaint schedule properties including item No.4 of plaint schedule property.
(vii)Furthermore, on perusal of the plaint averments, it is observed that the plaintiff has nowhere averred in the plaint averments that she has been excluded from item No.4 of plaint schedule property by virtue of sale
Page No. 30 of 34 transactions made by the 1st defendant in favour of defendant No.3 to 8 but she categorically averred in the plaint that she is in joint and constructive possession of all plaint schedule properties including item No.4 of plaint schedule property. In this regard, the Hon’ble High Court for the state of
Telangana at Hyderabad in the case of Komatireddy Venkat Reddy Vs. Smt.
Pakkir Jyothi report in 2024 (0) Supreme (Telangana) 204 – referred legal position as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Neelavati and others Vs. N. Natarajan and others, AIR 1980 SC 691 in relation to the requirement of court-fee paid u/sec.34(2) of AP court-fee and Suits Valuation
Act, and specifically observed in para No.20 that:
…..“The general principle of law is that in the case of co-sharers that the possession of one is lawful possession of all unless ouster or exclusion is proved. To continue to be in joint possession under law, it is not necessary that the plaintiff should be in actual possession of the whole or part of the property.
Equally it is not necessary that he should be getting a share or some income from the property. So long as his right to a share and the nature of the property as joint is not disputed, the law presumes that he is in joint possession unless he excluded from such possession. Before the plaintiffs could be called upon to pay court-fee u/sec.37(1) of the Act on the ground that they had been excluded from the possession, it is necessary that on a reading of plaint, there should be a clear and specific averment in the plaint that they had been ‘excluded’ from possession to which they are entitled to in law.”
(ix)The above referred case law is squarely applicable to the facts of this case on hand for the specific reason that in the plaint the plaintiff clearly averred that the plaintiff is in joint and constructive possession of the plaint schedule properties, and also nowhere she averred in the plaint that she has been excluded from the plaint schedule properties including item No.4 of plaint
Page No. 31 of 34 schedule properties. Further, in view of the settled legal position that possession of of one co-sharer in respect of joint family properties is the joint and constructive possession of other co-sharer and the vendees who purchased such joint family property without partition from one of co-sharers, are presumed to have come into shoes of their vendors i.e. the co-sharers who sold such undivided share to them, it can be safely held that the plaintiff being in constructive and joint possession of the plaint schedule properties including item No.4 of plaint schedule property is not required to pay ad valorem court fee u/sec.31(1) of AP Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, and as such, she is entitled to pay fixed court-fee of Rs.200/- u/sec.34(2) of AP court- fee and Suits Valuation Act. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff.
10. To what relief?
In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed without costs as follows:-
(i) granting preliminary decree partitioning item No.1 to 4 of plaint schedule properties into three equal shares among plaintiff, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant; and allotting 1/3rd share each to plaintiff, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant.
(ii) defendants 3 to 8 who came into shoes of 1st defendant are entitled to work out their equities in order to get their respective shares out of 1/3rd share that will be allotted to their vendor who is 1st defendant in item No.4 of plaint schedule property, during the final decree proceedings.
(iii) The plaintiff is directed to take necessary steps under Order XXII rule 18 of CPC for final decree proceedings by filing a separate petition, on or
before 17.04.2026.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of February, 2026.
Sd/- J. Srinivasarao
Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Sompeta
Page No. 32 of 34
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiff:For Defendants:
PW.1: YYadam Puspa @ Telli PuspaDW.1:YYadam Mohan Srinivas
PW.2:Telli KalidasDW.2:Telli Radhika
PW.3:YYadam Someswara RaoDW.3:YYadam Naresh Kumar
DW.4:Telli Venkata Rao
Documents Marked
For Plaintiff:For Defendants:
Ex.A1:Ex.A1 is the Certificate copyEx.B1: Ex.B.1 is the Original of the sale deed executed by registered sale deed, Dt.24- Pilli Neelakantam and his 08-2022 vide Doc. No. sons i.e., 1. Visweswara 2443/2022 executed by D.1/ Rao, 2. Parvateesham, 3. Yadam Mohan Srinivas in Jagadeesh on 29.06.1989 in favour of Telli Sankuntala/D.3. favour of YYadam Dhilli bearing document No. 1206/1989. Ex.A2:Ex.B2: Ex.A2 is the Certificate copyEx.B.2 is the Original of the sale deed executed byregistered sale deed, Dt.24-
1. Ardi Hanumantha Rao, 2.08-2022 vide Doc. No. Ramamurty, 3. Yarrayya, 4.2448/2022 executed by D.1/ Danayya on 22.06.1989 inYadam Mohan Srinivas in favour of Yadam Dhilli Raofavour of Telli Balaram/ D.4. bearing document No.Telli Jagadamba/ D.5 and 1150/1989.Yadam Nagaveni/ D.6. Ex.A3:Ex.B3: Ex.A3 is the Certificate copyEx.B.3 is the Original of the sale deed executed byregistered sale deed, Dt.24- 1st defendant/ Yadam08-2022 vide Doc. No. Mohana Srinivas in favour of2445/2022 executed by D.1/ 3rddefendant/TelliYadam Mohan Srinivas in Shakuntala on 24.08.2022,favour of Telli Venkata Rao! bearing document No.D.8. 2443/2022.
Page No. 33 of 34
Ex.A4:Ex.B4: Ex.A4 is the Certificate copyEx.B.4 is the certified copy of of the sale deed executed byregistered sale deed, Dt.24- 1st defendant/ Yadam08-2022 vide Doc. No. Mohana Srinivas in favour of2447/2022 executed by D.1/ 3rddefendant/TelliYadam Mohan Srinivas in Shakuntala on 24.08.2022,favour of Yadam Paparao/ bearing document No.D.7. 2446/2022. Ex.A5: Ex.A5 is the Certificate copy of the sale deed executed by 1stdefendant/Yadam Mohana Srinivas in favour of 4th defendant/ Telli Balaram, 5thdefendant/Telli JagYadamba, 6th defendant/ YYadamNagaveni on 24.08.2022,bearing document No. 2448/2022. Ex.A6: Ex.A6 is the Certificate copy of the sale deed executed by 1 defendant/ Yadam Mohana Srinivas in favour of 6th defendant/ Yadam Nagaveni on 24.08.2022, bearing document No. 2449/2022. Ex.A7: Ex.A7 is the Certificate copy of the sale deed executed by 1stdefendant/Yadam Mohana Srinivas in favour of 7th defendant/ Yadam Paparao on 24.08.2022, bearing document No. 2442/2022. Ex.A8: Ex.A8 is the Certificate copy of the sale deed executed by 1st defendant/ Yadam Mohana Stinivas in favour of 7th defendant/ YYadam Paparao on24.08.2022,bearing document No. 2447/2022.
Page No. 34 of 34
Ex.A9: Ex.A9 is the Certificate copy of the sale deed executed by 1st defendant/ Yadam Mohana Srinivas in favour of 8th defendant/ Telli Venkata Rao on 24.08.2022, bearing document No. 2445/2022. Ex.A10: Ex.A10 is the House tax receipt Dt. 28-01-2022 for Assessment No.1783 issued by GramaPanchayat, Sompeta in favour of Yadam Dhilli Rao. Ex.A11: Ex.A11 is the House tax receipt Dt. 28-01-2022 for Assessment No.5937 issued by GramaPanchayat, Sompeta in favour of YYadam Dhilli Rao. Ex.A12: Ex.A12 is the Original Family Member certificate Dt.18-11- 2021 issued by Panchay Secretariat, Sompeta. Ex.A13: Ex.A13 is the Original Aadhar card of PW.1.
Sd/- J. Srinivasarao
Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Sompeta